引用:

原帖由 lindachung4ever 於 2017-6-21 12:45 AM 發表

偷胸圍大狀馬浩輝 (Barrister Stanley Kilian Ma the Bra Thief)

How can barrister Stanley Kilian H F Ma shamelessly attempt to stay in the legal profession and shamelessly attempt to practise law after he had been found guilty of stealing a woman's bra? Which solicitor or lay client would be insane and foolish enough to use a bra thief when there are so many other choices around? I find this puzzling. Does this dishonest and disgusting barrister Stanley Kilian H F Ma actually get any cases to do?

Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.

George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.

The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.

Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.

'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.

'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.

'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.

Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.

He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.

The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.

He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.

Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.

Is this person, Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu, still practising law in Hong Kong after the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal convicted him of professional misconduct and (in the year 2000) suspended him for 6 months?

Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.

George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.

The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.

Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.

'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.

'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.

'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.

Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.

He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.

The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.

He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.

Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.

Is this person, Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu, still practising law in Hong Kong after the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal convicted him of professional misconduct and (in the year 2000) suspended him for 6 months?

It is the contention of the appellant, argued by Mr. Phillip Ross, that there was a flagrant failure by Mr. William Au, who appeared for the applicant below properly to present the applicant's defence...

28. The defence accorded the applicant by Mr. Au was, we have no hesitation in saying, characterized by flagrant incompetence. He left matters to his clerk which were clearly his duty to undertake. He failed to ensure that full instructions were taken from the applicant and was, because of this, never in a position fully to put the defence.

Plainly, the relationship between Mr Au and the Mother, together with the requisite trust and confidence which is essential to the relationship, has completely collapsed. In my view, the rent in the parties’ relationship is so deep that it is simply impossible for the Mother to continue to place any trust or confidence in Mr Au. When that very basis is gone, how can Mr Au continue to act for the Mother in the Probate Action? Mr Au suggested that he can do so and protect her interests without taking instructions from her and despite her objection. This is simply nonsensical. It defies common sense, rocks the very foundation of a solicitor-client relationship and destroys the very freedom that a client enjoys in choosing his own lawyer. It is indeed the most absurd submission that I have ever heard. It really appals me that such a suggestion could have come from the mouth of a practicing solicitor.

This is a wholly unmeritorious application. It is indeed an abuse of process. I will order costs against Mr Au on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.